Using an iPhone when I drive

On Aug 27, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Nick Pappas wrote:

> State legislatures show no interest in prohibiting cell phone use
> while driving.

In California, the State Legislature has decreed hands-free cell phone
use. When the law went into effect July 1, 2008, there was a big push
to publicize the new law on freeway signs and constant publicity in
the local press-TV. Private companies selling stuff like wireless
headsets got in on the act, too, hawking their wares. I was mightily
upset when Apple's 2.0 upgrade for the iPhone did not work in my
bluetooth Ram 2500 truck and "UConnect" has utterly failed.

I'm traveling this week in VA, PA and MD, and from watching the other
drivers, it does not appear that hands-free is the law here yet. As
an aside, Pennsylvania does not appear to have succumbed to the ever-
present push to enact more Nanny laws -- They don't even require
helmets for Motorcycle riders.

Dave

>Retrospective analyses of accident reports cross-referenced against
>mobile phone data suggest that talking on the phone while driving
>increases the risk of an accident


"Retrospective analyses" of accident reports also shows increased
risk of accidents as a result of being a teenager or an elderly
person, driving while not wearing a seatbelt, driving while not
wearing eyeglasses, driving at night, driving in the rain/snow,
driving in given zip codes, driving while eating, driving while
talking to passengers, driving while dealing with children, driving
with pets on board, driving while listening to the radio, driving a
car with a TV on board, driving over the speed limit, driving on
overinflated and on underinflated tires... and the list goes on and
on.

Unless you're intending to mount a campaign to eliminate all these
other "risks", I suggest just taking a deep breath and admitting that
communicating while driving is a part of modern life... a necessary
part. Freedom trumps everything unless there is criminal intent,
and if your non-criminal driving behavior is responsible for an
accident (for whatever cause), then the civil law is capable of
providing redress. We don't need to criminalize cell phone usage.
Tell your legislator to mind his/her own business.


H.

At 12:56 AM -0700 8/27/08, Nick Pappas wrote:
>State legislatures show no interest in prohibiting cell phone use
>while driving.

In your dreams.

"In the year 2003, legislating bodies in
forty-two states mulled over 116 bills which were
all associated with the usage of cell phone while
driving or driving while distracted. Mostly all
the states have considered passing actual laws
regarding this matter, but so far, seventeen
states have certain laws pertaining to cell phone
usage in the vehicle, and six states actually
passed cell phone legislation in the year 2003.
The six states are - Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Nevada and Tennessee."
<http://www.blurtit.com/q278073.html>

Since then, and as of June, 2008Š

California: Handheld Ban, commercial drivers exempted until 2011
Connecticut: Handheld Ban, some professions exempt
D.C. : Handheld Ban, some professions exempt
Minnesota: Text Messaging Ban (Effective 8/1/08)
New Jersey: Handheld Ban, Text Messaging Ban
Washington: Handheld Ban, Text Messaging Ban
Virgin Islands: Handheld Ban

--
Regards,
Chuck

  "As I (and my wife and kids) share the road with you, I'd politely
request that you pull off the road before answering the phone."

Roy, as RTW bikers, my wife and I agree completely. Our closest
mishaps have involved animals ejecting materials from cars and pick-
ups; animals crossing highways at night; and animals using cell
phones while driving. As you noted, the last group are fortunately
generally highly-visible through their erratic driving.

Paul,
W. Australia

The 'Nanny laws' are meant to protect drivers and passengers in other cars that might be involved in an accident caused by the person who is unadvisedly being distracted from driving carefully by using the mobile phone. They are also intended to protect other people in the offending driver's car (such as children) who are not able to prevent the driver from using the phone while driving. A few more sensible 'Nanny laws' like this might make us all feel a bit safer while driving.

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Ryoichi 'Roy' Morita
<Ryoichirjmorita.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Nick Pappas <ngpappasnii.net <mailto:ngpappasnii.net>> wrote:
> As I (and my wife and kids) share the road with you, I'd politely
> request that you pull off the road before answering the phone.
> If you are serious, you might want to consider giving up driving.
>
> State legislatures show no interest in prohibiting cell phone use
> while driving.
> I don't know which state you live in but starting on July 1 of this year, it became illegal in
> California to use the cell phone while driving.

Almost. It became illegal to use a handset while driving. Hands-free
solutions, on the other hand, are just fine.

I love my iPhone 3G, but I do miss the Bluetooth-controllable
speaker-independent voice recognition.

> I never use the cell phone while driving because I find it almost impossible to pay attention to
> the traffic while talking on the phone at the same time.
>
> I can always tell if a driver is on the phone by just watching the way s/he drives.

I doubt that. I can always tell when someone is talking on a handset,
but I can't always tell when someone is talking on the phone with a
handsfree solution.

-austin

On 27-Aug-2008, at 23:43, Charles M. Sklar wrote:

> In your dreams.
>
> California: Handheld Ban, commercial drivers exempted until 2011
> Connecticut: Handheld Ban, some professions exempt
> D.C. : Handheld Ban, some professions exempt
> Minnesota: Text Messaging Ban (Effective 8/1/08)
> New Jersey: Handheld Ban, Text Messaging Ban
> Washington: Handheld Ban, Text Messaging Ban
> Virgin Islands: Handheld Ban

None of these, and no state, has passed legislation prohibiting cell
phone use while driving.

On 27-Aug-2008, at 23:43, Ryoichi 'Roy' Morita wrote:

> I don't know which state you live in but starting on July 1 of this
> year, it became illegal in California to use the cell phone while
> driving.

That's simply not true.

On Aug 27, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Hudson Barton wrote:

> Freedom trumps everything unless there is criminal intent,

Does it now? Then I am free to drive 105 mph with a quart of whiskey
between my legs as long as don't intend to kill anyone? Free to
shoot at squirrels in my suburban backyard with a 30.06 as long as I
don't intend to drill the kid playing soccer half a mile away between
the eyes?

Balderdash. We have laws to pre-empt demonstrably dangerous
behavior. Driving while talking on a cellphone is demonstrably,
reproducibly dangerous. It's a shame that the marketing people have
convinced us that it's a necessity of modern life, when it clearly
isn't.

And yes, I do it, even when I know I shouldn't. Necessity? Not for
anyone. Convenient and good at making people feel important and
busy? You betcha.

Scott Wyant

On Aug 28, 2008, at 01:43, Dave Clark wrote:

> I'm traveling this week in VA, PA and MD, and from watching the other
> drivers, it does not appear that hands-free is the law here yet. As
> an aside, Pennsylvania does not appear to have succumbed to the ever-
> present push to enact more Nanny laws -- They don't even require
> helmets for Motorcycle riders.

DC and VA have hands free, don't know about Maryland. Nobody pays any
attention to it though, so it must only be a secondary instead of
primary offense:-)

Dave Clark wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Nick Pappas wrote:
>
>> State legislatures show no interest in prohibiting cell phone use
>> while driving.
>
> In California, the State Legislature has decreed hands-free cell phone
> use. When the law went into effect July 1, 2008, there was a big push
> to publicize the new law on freeway signs and constant publicity in
> the local press-TV. Private companies selling stuff like wireless
> headsets got in on the act, too, hawking their wares. I was mightily
> upset when Apple's 2.0 upgrade for the iPhone did not work in my
> bluetooth Ram 2500 truck and "UConnect" has utterly failed.
>
> I'm traveling this week in VA, PA and MD, and from watching the other
> drivers, it does not appear that hands-free is the law here yet. As
> an aside, Pennsylvania does not appear to have succumbed to the ever-
> present push to enact more Nanny laws -- They don't even require
> helmets for Motorcycle riders.

They used to when I lived there in the 80s. But the law didn't specify where you had to wear it so many of the "I can't get hurt crowd" would strap a small token helmet to their knee or elsewhere.

David

Charles M. Sklar wrote:
> At 12:56 AM -0700 8/27/08, Nick Pappas wrote:
>> State legislatures show no interest in prohibiting cell phone use
>> while driving.
>
> In your dreams.
>
> "In the year 2003, legislating bodies in
> forty-two states mulled over 116 bills which were
> all associated with the usage of cell phone while
> driving or driving while distracted. Mostly all
> the states have considered passing actual laws
> regarding this matter, but so far, seventeen
> states have certain laws pertaining to cell phone
> usage in the vehicle, and six states actually
> passed cell phone legislation in the year 2003.
> The six states are - Arkansas, Kentucky,
> Louisiana, Maine, Nevada and Tennessee."
> <http://www.blurtit.com/q278073.html>
>
> Since then, and as of June, 2008Š
>
> California: Handheld Ban, commercial drivers exempted until 2011
> Connecticut: Handheld Ban, some professions exempt
> D.C. : Handheld Ban, some professions exempt
> Minnesota: Text Messaging Ban (Effective 8/1/08)
> New Jersey: Handheld Ban, Text Messaging Ban
> Washington: Handheld Ban, Text Messaging Ban
> Virgin Islands: Handheld Ban

And none of this prohibits cell phone usage. Just using your hands to operate it when driving. Big difference.

David

>>> State legislatures show no interest in prohibiting cell phone use
>>> while driving.
>>
>> In California, the State Legislature has decreed hands-free cell
>> phone
>> use. When the law went into effect July 1, 2008, there was a big
>> push
>> to publicize the new law on freeway signs and constant publicity in
>> the local press-TV. Private companies selling stuff like wireless
>> headsets got in on the act, too, hawking their wares. I was mightily
>> upset when Apple's 2.0 upgrade for the iPhone did not work in my
>> bluetooth Ram 2500 truck and "UConnect" has utterly failed.
>>
>> I'm traveling this week in VA, PA and MD, and from watching the other
>> drivers, it does not appear that hands-free is the law here yet. As
>> an aside, Pennsylvania does not appear to have succumbed to the ever-
>> present push to enact more Nanny laws -- They don't even require
>> helmets for Motorcycle riders.
>
> They used to when I lived there in the 80s. But the law didn't
> specify where you had to wear it so many of the "I can't get hurt
> crowd" would strap a small token helmet to their knee or elsewhere.

On five days in Pennsylvania near York (home of a Harley-Davidson
plant) and Lancaster County over last weekend, I saw numerous M/C
riders with nothing on their heads buy hair and goggles. On the other
hand, I did not notice any bluetooth devices or headsets for phones in
any ears on the riders.

Dave

At 3:21 AM -0700 8/30/08, David Ross wrote:
>Charles M. Sklar wrote:
>>At 12:56 AM -0700 8/27/08, Nick Pappas wrote:
>>>State legislatures show no interest in prohibiting cell phone use
>>>while driving.
>>
>>In your dreams.
>>
>>"In the year 2003, legislating bodies in
>>forty-two states mulled over 116 bills which were
>>all associated with the usage of cell phone while
>>driving or driving while distracted. Mostly all
>>the states have considered passing actual laws
>>regarding this matter, but so far, seventeen
>>states have certain laws pertaining to cell phone
>>usage in the vehicle, and six states actually
>>passed cell phone legislation in the year 2003.
>>The six states are - Arkansas, Kentucky,
>>Louisiana, Maine, Nevada and Tennessee."
>><http://www.blurtit.com/q278073.html>
>>
>>Since then, and as of June, 2008S
>>
>>California: Handheld Ban, commercial drivers exempted until 2011
>>Connecticut: Handheld Ban, some professions exempt
>>D.C. : Handheld Ban, some professions exempt
>>Minnesota: Text Messaging Ban (Effective 8/1/08)
>>New Jersey: Handheld Ban, Text Messaging Ban
>>Washington: Handheld Ban, Text Messaging Ban
>>Virgin Islands: Handheld Ban
>
>And none of this prohibits cell phone usage. Just using your hands
>to operate it when driving. Big difference.

Not so big a difference when one considers that the vast majority of
drivers have devices in hand while using them. I observe this fact
every day during my very long commute to work. But true, the bans are
not total bans (I don't recall anyone suggesting they were.) They
contain sane exceptions such as emergency situations, exempt
professions and (by definition) hands-free operation. Total
prohibition is not how the debate was originally framed, however, nor
how most rational individuals perceive the issue. It's what some wish
to morph the debate into. But the argument here is that, "State
legislatures show no interest in prohibiting cell phone use while
driving." Legislators *absolutely* show an interest to modify this
demonstrable, profoundly unsafe driving behavior, exemplified by
these first cell phone bans, regardless of semantic debate fostered
by denial or ignorance of facts in evidence about cell phones,
driving and the law.

--
Regards,
Chuck

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:12 AM, p. young <p.younglancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
> The 'Nanny laws' are meant to protect drivers and passengers in other cars that might be involved in an accident caused by the person who is unadvisedly being distracted from driving carefully by using the mobile phone. They are also intended to protect other people in the offending driver's car (such as children) who are not able to prevent the driver from using the phone while driving. A few more sensible 'Nanny laws' like this might make us all feel a bit safer while driving.

I got it. Then the "Nanny laws" don't go far enough. You say "the
person who is unadvisedly being distracted from driving carefully"
well that means any distractions right? So all passengers must be
completely restrained, no movements or gestures can be made to
distract the driver. All occupants of the vehicle, including the
driver, must be gagged to prevent any distracting conversation. Radios
should also be banned, listening to anything is a distraction. All
sound absorbing material must be removed from every car so as not to
distract from hearing sirens and other sounds alerting the driver to
other cars, trucks and motorcycles. Head braces must be worn by the
driver to only allow looking in the appropriate mirrors and windows of
the cars. All mirrors must be manufactured to not allow viewing of any
other occupant of the vehicle. If this requires hoods or shrouds on
the occupants than all occupants other than the driver must wear them.
All noises other than traffic noises must be banned from any route
where any vehicle shall pass as it could distract the driver.

Does that seem silly to you? It does to me as well. The only thing
"Nanny Laws" do is give a false sense of security to people. They are
pretty much equivalent of
----------------------------------------------------------------
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

cuz I find it funny

On Aug 30, 2008, at 312AM, p.young wrote:

> The 'Nanny laws' are meant to protect drivers and passengers in
> other cars that might be involved in an accident caused by the
> person who is unadvisedly being distracted from driving carefully
> by using the mobile phone. They are also intended to protect other
> people in the offending driver's car (such as children) who are not
> able to prevent the driver from using the phone while driving. A
> few more sensible 'Nanny laws' like this might make us all feel a
> bit safer while driving.
>

If this logic is correct, then we need a Nanny Law to prevent the
biggest problem of all: Having passengers in the car, especially your
own children. There is nothing more distracting than conversations
with people sitting right next to you.
Dan

>Does it now? Then I am free to drive 105 mph with a quart of whiskey
>between my legs as long as don't intend to kill anyone? Free to
>shoot at squirrels in my suburban backyard with a 30.06 as long as I
>don't intend to drill the kid playing soccer half a mile away between
>the eyes?
>
>Balderdash. We have laws to pre-empt demonstrably dangerous
>behavior. Driving while talking on a cellphone is demonstrably,
>reproducibly dangerous. It's a shame that the marketing people have
>convinced us that it's a necessity of modern life, when it clearly
>isn't.
>
>And yes, I do it, even when I know I shouldn't. Necessity? Not for
>anyone. Convenient and good at making people feel important and
>busy? You betcha.
>
>Scott Wyant


So you want to impose behavioral rules and sanctions (hypocritically)
because you imagine people are incapable of doing the right thing
without them. Your logic is not at fault, but I cannot agree with
your presuppositions that betray an inclination toward socialism.

This is precisely the problem: many of our legislators... young,
poorly educated and thinking they need to legislate
something/anything... can't distinguish between a prospective law
that prohibits talking on cell phones while driving and an existing
law that prohibits shooting at squirrels in a suburban backyards with
a 30.06.

Necessity? You are right of course that cell phone talking while
driving is not a "necessity", but by that logic neither are cell
phones, or even cars. The fact is that our modern society
increasingly demands communication while mobile. Technological change
very often brings new risks, but that doesn't mean we should reject
it. I remember back in the 1950's the government was concerned
about how AM radio in cars was causing teenagers to be reckless
drivers. Deja vu all over again.

Personally, I don't need the government to require my use of an
iPhone headset while driving (or walking). I do it because it's both
a better way to communicate and a better way to drive (or walk).

Caveat: I am not an anarchist. I approve of rule-making on side
issues of driving safety... but not by government. I "legislated"
all kinds of rules for my teenagers when they were learning how to
drive such that they would not be distracted by ANYTHING until they
proved they were skilled and responsible drivers.


H.

Just an FYI, this is the second message I have sent that has been
truncated. Not sure what is happening, I've checked the original
message I sent and it is complete.

[Not sure - could have been computer error, or I might have accidentally deleted something during moderation. In either case, sorry! -Joe]

The last paragraph should be:

Does that seem silly to you? It does to me as well. The only thing
"Nanny Laws" do is give a false sense of security to people. They are
pretty much equivalent of of your mom trying to shove her foot through
the floor of the passenger seat when she thinks you are going to fast
and that causing your foot to push on the brakes. If you really want a
solution then we need people to actually be competent when driving.
Since that will never pass as a law we get a stream of "Nanny Laws"
that pretend to solve the problem but are more of a placebo than
anything else.

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Michael Krzyzek <michaeltactile.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:12 AM, p. young <p.younglancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The 'Nanny laws' are meant to protect drivers and passengers in other cars that might be involved in an accident caused by the person who is unadvisedly being distracted from driving carefully by using the mobile phone. They are also intended to protect other people in the offending driver's car (such as children) who are not able to prevent the driver from using the phone while driving. A few more sensible 'Nanny laws' like this might make us all feel a bit safer while driving.

> I got it. Then the "Nanny laws" don't go far enough. You say "the
> person who is unadvisedly being distracted from driving carefully"
> well that means any distractions right? So all passengers must be
> completely restrained, no movements or gestures can be made to
> distract the driver. All occupants of the vehicle, including the
> driver, must be gagged to prevent any distracting conversation. Radios
> should also be banned, listening to anything is a distraction. All
> sound absorbing material must be removed from every car so as not to
> distract from hearing sirens and other sounds alerting the driver to
> other cars, trucks and motorcycles. Head braces must be worn by the
> driver to only allow looking in the appropriate mirrors and windows of
> the cars. All mirrors must be manufactured to not allow viewing of any
> other occupant of the vehicle. If this requires hoods or shrouds on
> the occupants than all occupants other than the driver must wear them.
> All noises other than traffic noises must be banned from any route
> where any vehicle shall pass as it could distract the driver.
>
> Does that seem silly to you? It does to me as well. The only thing
> "Nanny Laws" do is give a false sense of security to people. They are
> pretty much equivalent of

--
Michael

On 31-Aug-2008, at 07:31, Charles M. Sklar wrote:

> But true, the bans are
> not total bans (I don't recall anyone suggesting they were.)

Reread the thread.

> But the argument here is that, "State legislatures show no interest
> in prohibiting cell phone use while
> driving."

No state legislature has *prohibited* cell phone use while driving.

> Legislators *absolutely* show an interest to modify this
> demonstrable, profoundly unsafe driving behavior, exemplified by
> these first cell phone bans, regardless of semantic debate fostered
> by denial or ignorance of facts in evidence about cell phones,
> driving and the law.

But these bans are silly and make no sense since hands-free cell phone
use, which all states allow, is *just as dangerous*.

This is _really_ off-topic, and I'm getting tired of some of the
obnoxious attitudes on display in this thread...

[I've let the discussion go on longer than I probably should have, because I've found it all interesting and (even the parts of it I disagreed with personally). But you're right, this thread has more than run its course, and so I hereby declare it closed. No more posts on this topic, please - they will be mulched. -Joe]

Kirk